Color blind

A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled that a law calling for "minority-owned" companies to receive 5 percent of defense contract dollars is unconstitutional because there isn't enough proof the Pentagon has been discriminating against such firms in awarding contracts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that because Congress did not have strong evidence of discrimination against minority contractors by the Defense Department, the law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

Predictably, the 22-year-old law -- far from encouraging harmony among genders and races -- cost the taxpayers billions while fomenting battles to decide who was more deserving of "minority" consideration.

Rothe Development Corp., a Texas company owned by a white woman, in 1988 filed a lawsuit against the Defense Department after the Air Force awarded a contract for computer work at a Mississippi base to a competitor run by a Korean-American couple.

Rothe had bid $5.57 million for the work, but the Air Force took the higher bid of $5.75 million by International Computer Telecommunications Inc.

A federal court in Texas last year ruled in favor of the Defense Department, but Rothe appealed the decision.

The lower court relied partly on six studies that purported to show evidence of a nationwide pattern of discrimination against minority firms. But the appeals court said the studies suffered from defects -- they pointed out shortfalls in contracts awarded to minority companies while failing to assess whether the firms were capable of doing the work.

The only problem with this ruling is that it's likely to have such narrow application. Absent specific evidence of such aberrations, the notion that 21st century government agencies purposely refuse to farm out work to capable low-bidding firms because those companies happen to be owned by women or members of racial minorities is absurd.

The law should be color-blind.